Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Interplatform (interprocess, interlanguage) communication
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <26124274.18.1328738542263.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbks5>
References: <IPC-20120203200443@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <aM6dnWFo75_W9KzSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <jgscnm$1td$1@news.albasani.net> <QijYq.17178$%17.218@newsfe06.iad> <jgtcid$kfs$1@news.albasani.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328738633 8796 127.0.0.1 (8 Feb 2012 22:03:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jgtcid$kfs$1@news.albasani.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11860

BGB wrote:
> ...
> an example is this:
> <foo> <bar value="3"/> </foo>
> and:
> (foo (bar 3))
> 
> now, consider one wants to add a new field to 'foo' (say 'ln').
> <foo ln="15"> <bar value="3"/> </foo>
> and:
> (foo 15 (bar 3))
> 
> a difference here is that existing code will probably not even notice 
> the new XML attribute, whereas the positional nature of most 

Ahem. You mean other than failing schema validation?

> S-Expressions makes the latter far more likely to break something (and 

More likely than failing schema validation was for that well-designed XML-based 
application?

> there is no good way to "annotate" an S-Exp, whereas with XML it is 
> fairly solidly defined that one can simply add new attributes).

Attributes in XML are not annotation (with or without quotes). That role is  filled by the actual 'annotation' element 
http://www.w3schools.com/schema/el_annotation.asp

> note: my main way of working with XML is typically via DOM-style 
> interfaces (if I am using it, it is typically because I am directly 
> working with the data structure, and not as the result of some dumb-ass 
> "data binding" crud...).

Sorry, "dumb-ass 'data-binding' crud"?

Why the extreme pejoratives? I would not say that there's anything wrong with 
XML data-binding /per se/, although as with documented-oriented approaches it 
can be done very badly.

> typically, the "internal representation" and "concrete serialization" 
> are different:

I don't understand what you mean here. You cite these terms in quotes as though 
they are a standard terminology for some specific things, but use them in their 
ordinary meaning. The internal representation of what? The serialization 
("concrete" or otherwise) of what? I don't mean to be obtuse here, but I am not 
grokking the referents.

> I may use a textual XML serialization, or just as easily, I could use a 
> binary format;
> likewise for S-Exps (actually, I probably far more often represent 
> S-Exps as a binary format of one form or another than I use them in a 
> form externally serialized as text).
> 
> all hail the mighty DOM-node or CONS-cell...

WTF?

-- 
Lew